-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Reddit AMA with Xbox One dev
- Thread starter nhlducks35
- Start date
- Status
These people are forever trying to sell us the bullshit that they wanted to destroy renting, implement a horrific limited proprietary used game system for sales - partially so devs/publishers could get a cut - and then they genuinely believe anyone is going to be fooled by some ridiculously absurd and easy-to-abuse system in which you can essentially turn one sale split ten ways? Even if it was only one other person on a game at a time, the ability to simply be logistical about the schedule was painfully simple.
These motherfuckers are stupid as shit if they think anyone will fall for this
These motherfuckers are stupid as shit if they think anyone will fall for this
Fushichou187
Member
How? A timed demo on my PS3 is still the full game. It's a full digital download of the whole game. Hell, I even get trophies from it. When the time expires your full game locks and you pay whatever the retail price is to unlock it, should you want to purchase it.
The dev spun a semantic yarn on that answer, pitting our concept of "demo" with that of "full game", plus he went out of his way to clarify that he couldn't comment beyond that spin.
He says it was for a full game. A time-trial demo, at least what we have currently on the PS3, is that.
He says that the "purpose was to eliminate the need to ever have to physically hand someone a game that you bought to share with them."
Not "give it to them", which is how they were trying to frame the family plan. A lot of things point to their family plan being a user distributed network of timed-demos; I buy Ryse. I think it's dope so I "share" it with you since you're in my family plan. You download it from me or, more likely, from MS' servers. You now have the full game. You get to play the full game for however long the timer is set for. Speculation was for one hour but I could easily see MS allowing a 2hr time window to get more people to commit to the experience. Once that time is up, FUCK YOU PAY ME.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
Yep. kinect one was based on prime sense tech
You think the dev's weren't getting anything out of the new DRM? You remember all the mess about selling a game to an "official" retailer so basically it could be re-licensed and resoled as used? Rumor is the devs would have gotten a taste of that.
So the family plan could have broken down as:
- 11 people could play off a single license, but only 2 at a time max (original purchaser and one other off his family list of ten people), so if 2 are playing the others have to wait.
- If the Original Purchaser sold the game (or didn't check in within 24 hrs) no one could play it. (keep your X1 on!)
- If the game is resold the dev gets a few more $ (cost of used games probably goes up)
- Piracy on this kind of DRM is significantly lower so less loss on Piracy in the first place.
This would have been a benefit to MS, the Devs, and the people on the purchasers family list.
I'm not saying I'm 100% sure that it would have been the full game with unlimited play, but I see the benefits for everyone in this setup.
I'd also like to say I'm buying a PS4 Day 1 because of price (not DRM) and the games speak to me more. All this Built in TV BS on the X1 is not for me, I haven't had cable in 3 years, and I don't really want it.
Manmademan
Member
exactly. I don't doubt there was some kind of program here that technically allowed sharing between 10 people, but anyone who thinks it was unrestricted borrowing between the libraries of 10 people all the time is out of their minds.
we'll never know exactly what the plan was, but the picture MS wants to paint of the progam simply isn't credible or plausible.
I'm sorry, but I see the same thing popping up again amd again
<<oh noes, developers are going to sue microsoft if they remove the kinect>>
Really?
Is there somebody here who really think that ea or ubi or activision are going to sue microsoft?
Because if not them, then who? Turn10, rare and crytek? Lol
But even if it was really about peter moore suing microsoft, I guess if Iwas microsoft I would have to wage my options...
A dev unhappy or customers/generation lost?
Hmm not very hard to decide, even if that was the case..
So ms better find another boogeyman because "devs sueing" does not look very convincing..
<<oh noes, developers are going to sue microsoft if they remove the kinect>>
Really?
Is there somebody here who really think that ea or ubi or activision are going to sue microsoft?
Because if not them, then who? Turn10, rare and crytek? Lol
But even if it was really about peter moore suing microsoft, I guess if Iwas microsoft I would have to wage my options...
A dev unhappy or customers/generation lost?
Hmm not very hard to decide, even if that was the case..
So ms better find another boogeyman because "devs sueing" does not look very convincing..
Oh what a suprise that you're in this thread spouting your usual agenda.
Hydrargyrus
Member
It seems like there are too much Kinect in this thing...
What's my usual agenda? The fucking facts. Deal with it or be a petulant whiny little baby who goes through every day putting his fingers in his ears and singing "la la la" so that he doesn't have to face reality.
First of all, a 10 person full game sharing plan where 2 can play at the same time is infinitely worse for publishers compared to second hand games and lending games. It is too good to be true, and I can't think for a second the publishers would be fine with it.
And if this is SO good, MS FUBAR'ed their presentation. They could have made a 2 minute preview of this in their E3 where you shared your digital game. It would be better than demoing skype, don't you think?
The fact that this superb digital sharing plan was not underlined at the reveal, or at E3 while MS was under so much fire for the DRM, either means MS is run by complete idiots, or this family sharing was not all that fancy thing to begin with. I believe in the latter.
They just had to remove DRM, and to save their image, the family sharing plan was made out to be the best thing digital game distribution has ever seen, They had to claim that their DRM also brought something good.
If their intentions were so superb, they could have kept it for digital downloads. And they could have followed a hybrid approach, where family sharing would only be active for the next 24 hours a user logs in, otherwise the digital game would only be playable at the "master" console, where the master console could be deemed offline. The sharing would be allowed for connected devices, devices which logged in during the last 24 hours (or even, 1 hour). (It's not complicated at all to implement, just letting the master console play the game after 24 hours of being offline, and keep EVERYTHING else the same, the system mentioned here is implemented)
And if this is SO good, MS FUBAR'ed their presentation. They could have made a 2 minute preview of this in their E3 where you shared your digital game. It would be better than demoing skype, don't you think?
The fact that this superb digital sharing plan was not underlined at the reveal, or at E3 while MS was under so much fire for the DRM, either means MS is run by complete idiots, or this family sharing was not all that fancy thing to begin with. I believe in the latter.
They just had to remove DRM, and to save their image, the family sharing plan was made out to be the best thing digital game distribution has ever seen, They had to claim that their DRM also brought something good.
If their intentions were so superb, they could have kept it for digital downloads. And they could have followed a hybrid approach, where family sharing would only be active for the next 24 hours a user logs in, otherwise the digital game would only be playable at the "master" console, where the master console could be deemed offline. The sharing would be allowed for connected devices, devices which logged in during the last 24 hours (or even, 1 hour). (It's not complicated at all to implement, just letting the master console play the game after 24 hours of being offline, and keep EVERYTHING else the same, the system mentioned here is implemented)
You got all that from my post did you?, you're good man. You're not fooling anyone anymore. You spend time on this forum and you get to see the same few posters spouting the same shit in certain threads daily. It gets tiresome to be honest.
Manmademan
Member
Sony had a 5 person game sharing program with no restrictions when they launched the PS3. Publishers complained, so now it's down to 2. a 2 person simultaneous sharing program is realistic, as it's not that different than what Sony is doing.
SPECULATION: I don't think the details on this one were done. MS was sort of forced into revealing it prematurely when the E3 backlash was wildly getting out of control. sort of a "wait, the Xboxone isn't ALL bad, we have THIS" sort of move. but when pressed, MS refused to say anything at all about it beyond the vaguest, rosiest possible implementation of it.
I mentioned this one before, it might have been missed. MS had negotiated (or was in the process of negotiating) their game sharing program based on the assumption of 24 hour check ins and always on functionality. Once that was blown up, the entire thing would have had to have been renegotiated, and these things take time. I don't doubt it's coming, but devs are going to want a new deal that's more lucrative for them.
Of course I did; the only people who would call what I said an 'agenda' are Xbox One fanboys or someone so intimately connected to the development of the system that they have no perspective. Even bish, whom you probably know, who has some experience in the industry you understand, said you'd have to be on motherfucking drugs to believe the family share plan was what they were trying to fool people into thinking it was. I don't even have to take into consideration the 98% correct CBOAT's clarification on the subject confirming this is true. It's just fucking obvious. Use some common fucking sense.
I was being nice saying it the way I was; but there's plenty of others who were more blunt.
I spend much time articulating my thoughts at length and putting in real effort... and you, bound by what is sure to be some pathetic ideology, believes that I have an 'agenda' and instead of articulating how a comment is wrong, chooses to swipe. So, what's my agenda? Do you know it? Is it to kill Xbox? Is it to prop up Sony or Nintendo? What is it?
My agenda is not to be fucked as a consumer. That's all I give a shit about. And if you believe that the family share plan was the garbage they're trying to sell, you just happen to be a consumer who wants to be fucked or someone on the inside who has a vested interest in pretending reality isn't reality.
What the hell? Jesus man. 90 percent of people look at a video game console as being just that, a box that plays games. Why are you so fired up? People can vote with their wallets and decide for themselves without being insulted. "Petulant whiny little baby" Fucking nice.
It is a box that plays games. That's not why I said the comment I did. It's very specific to the comment that was made; trying to claim someone has an 'agenda' for stating the obvious facts. Only whiny petulant babies do that or fanboys. Sometimes the petulant babies happen to also be fanboys
Agreed, the won't sue microsoft if they pull the connect, but guess what will happen: ill will. microsoft looks bad again in a continuing cycle of looking bad.
What if a multiplatform game has a "feature" in it that is kinect specific? The code base at least needs to be reviewed which costs the devs money and time. Money lost is bad for obvious reasons, time lost may mean delays.
The dev isn't going to stop releasing the version for the PS4 though, which means first sales go to Sony. microsoft doesn't get that first taste, and looks even worse in the process. The devs lose trust in their relationship with microsoft the same way the gamers did.
I find the new kinect bundled with the x1 creepy (why do you need to know my heart rate and mood?) I hate reading license agreements to see what info is being sent back to microsoft, but keeping the kinect in at this point is really the best option for microsoft.
I don't believe or care about the family plan shit or whatever, i'm just sick of seeing the same handful of posters preaching the same shit daily in Microsoft threads.
I do have to say that you calling me an Xbox fanboy is funny, i mean i do prefer Xbox but i buy both Microsoft and Sony consoles but for you to say that is comical.
What is up with people that have the most obvious post history in the history of forums trying to call others out.
It's so absurd. :-D
I also like the disclaimer to seem impartial. Nobody has caught onto that.
What do you mean "for me to say that"?
Oh, I guess you didn't know 360 was my primary console last-gen, that virtually every multiplatform game I purchased was on the system, that almost every downloadable game I brought was on 360, that I played literally 99.9% of all my multiplayer on 360 (just ask greendomo's ghost on NeoGAF, one of my Left 4 Dead squadmates). That, in fact, 3/4 of all my game purchases last gen were for Microsoft's platform.
You see the difference between a fanboy and someone who isn't a fanboy is I don't have anything to prove. i know what I am. I play games. You play companies. You don't like hearing the truth about the Xbox One because it upsets your sense of fanboy honor. I, on the other hand, don't care how much someone says something if that something is true and if they go about explaining themselves at length.
You owning more than just Microsoft systems means zilch. It's the same as a racist who says they have black friends, only difference is one is morally wrong and the other is just silly platform allegiances.
Seems like Microsoft is in the same boat as Nintendo, creating a completely new peripheral which drastically inflates the cost. Totally mind boggling that they are betting a significant portion of the cost of the system on what is essentially hand gestures. As everything else can be covered elsewhere for much less(cameras, mics etc).
If Microsoft ever releases a version without Kinect they basically have a severely gimped PS4 with HDMI in and not much else.
If Microsoft ever releases a version without Kinect they basically have a severely gimped PS4 with HDMI in and not much else.
Neuromancer
Member
Or C) all of the above.
Manmademan
Member
microsoft is including kinect for the same reason sony included blu-ray with the PS3, and betting they can get away with it for the same reasons.
I don't understand why it bothers you that anyone is trashing Microsoft. What is it about consoles that make people so attached to corporations?
The thing is that i only really prefer Xbox because of the controller but the shit that they have had and still have on this forum is almost turning me into a console warrior and believe me i hate that shit, i wish we lived in a world where everyone could have both consoles so we wouldn't have anywhere near as much 'console war' shite.
Blame fucking Microsoft. They did what they did. Why are you angry that a forum filled with consumers stuck up for their consumer rights?
That's total victim blaming. And the classic sign of a fanboy, by the way. Which of course you're totally not!
Uno Venova
Banned
Personally, I would recommend not taking it too seriously, using ignore if you cant handle it, logging off etc.
Wickerbasket
Member
The most vocal people complaining about the Xbox One were 360 owners, and likely bought all their multiplats on 360. This isn't surprising, as the ones most disappointed are those who were planning on buying an Xbox One before this clusterfuck.
The fact that Microsoft has turned their own fans against them is testament to how badly they fucked up.
Oh no, it's almost been 2 months that they have had to deal with shit after trying to fuck the majority of consumers.
Ask Nintendo or Sony fans if they still see posts that they get annoyed by that are based on 6 year old arguments that haven't been true for awhile.
If you can't handle the past 7 weeks after Microsoft fucked everything up by alienating a majority of their ostensible target market then I doubt you'll survive the launch.
Neuromancer
Member
You're not really helping the situation when you say things like
...rather than point out something that's factually inaccurate in his posts, or specific parts of his posts you disagree with (and why).
quickwhips
Member
Are you talking to him or yourself...
I see it as 2 licenses, an owner license, and a "lending license" that lending license is limited to 10 people though. Honestly I don't know how well it would have worked out for devs monetarily, and I could see this as something that might have been limited to microsoft published games only if the numbers came back poorly for the developer, but again I'm theorizing.
Couldn't agree with you more. The messaging from microsoft was all over the place. I understand the reveal was all about the TV/app stuff, but they failed to clarify anything at E3 and that is a huge failure on their part. Its also why there's so much confusion about what was actually included in the family plan. if it was what they are now claiming then it's their fault for not being more clear about it.
Did they announce what they are doing with digital? Last I had heard they have not released information on what they are doing with digital downloads. It would actually be easier for them to implement because there are no used sales, but it would be harder to convince the developers because they would not make any $ off of used game sales, so why should they agree to it?
You have me so wrong but if i have you wrong then i apologise, i really wasn't like this until i joined this forum. I just feel Microsoft get shit on too much on this forum, you get some good news about them in a new thread on here and its already been turned into a negative by the end of the first page.
By the way, i'm not even certain i'm getting an Xbox One as i simply don't agree with the whole Kinect thing.
LukasTaves
Member
How's that a confirmation of anything?
BTW, I don't like to cross forum links, but an ex-Ms employee on B3D did gave a few more details on how family sharing would work.
The 60min thing wasn't a limit on how much a person could play the game, it was a checkout timer. Meaning that if I started playing some game, even after I stopped playing it 5 minutes later, other members of the share group would still have to wait a full hour to play that game (that includes the owner of the game, BTW, only one could play the shared copy at a time)... With in conjunction to the hourly online check, that was to ensure that people wouldn't abuse the system by going offline after starting a game so another one could also play.
The games would also be manually added to the shared library, but there would be a 2 week countdown after the game is released until it could be added to the shared library.
And the lock for other people would be game based, and not the entire library, meaning, that if you were playing a shared game of mine, some one else could still play other game.
It's different from Sony as in, with this imaginary plan, you don't have to have an activated account on the consoles that you are sharing your game with, which makes it a lot more convenient. Activating an account on a console of a person that you are not familiar to is very risky business, as it involves giving your password. MS's imaginary plan doesn't have this. A ring of 10 people would buy any non popular (or games that you don't have to play when the game come out) game and share it along, which would be a very big hit compared to Sony's solution or game disc lending.
Sony's current solution involves deactivating one of your consoles if you want to access the content on a 3rd.
I agree on the rosiest part.
I don't see any publisher finding the benefits of this 10 people game sharing over second hand sales. Surely, MS's system allowed sell-back money going towards the publisher, but with this system, but the family sharing plan would have reduced the sell-back to very small sums, and that's only even the 10 people in your sharing list has agreed to give the game back, after everybody plays it. The need for 2nd hand buying of the content would be almost made obsolete, due to how you can set up a ring and share your games, you may not ever need to buy a reduced price 2nd hand game anymore. (Actually there'd be no 2nd hands with the MS's proposed system, only you'd receive a pre-determined value that you could probably only use for new games by giving up your license) It's vastly more efficient for being able to share your games than going out and buying a 2nd hand game for 10 dollars below its full price, chances are someone on your ring has bought it to fullfil his part of the duty.
So, no, I still cannot believe that what was ditched was something that awesome.
Apart from anything else the whole "Our messaging wasn't right" thing pisses me off, politicians do it all the bloody time too.
"Oh that policy the public hated, that wasn't because the policy was bad. Its because they are too dumb to understand our message"
Fuck outta here with that shit. Regardless of whether you supported the policy or not that shit is insulting.
"Oh that policy the public hated, that wasn't because the policy was bad. Its because they are too dumb to understand our message"
Fuck outta here with that shit. Regardless of whether you supported the policy or not that shit is insulting.
Neuromancer
Member
I'm fluent in CBOATese, it's a confirmation of the 60 minute window.
GoofsterStud
Member
I told everyone Kinect was expensive...why are we surprised?
Also I don't understand how Ryse can remind anyone of Darksiders two based on E3. Either he knows more than we do about the game...or we can confirm this is all fake when more info is released.
Also I don't understand how Ryse can remind anyone of Darksiders two based on E3. Either he knows more than we do about the game...or we can confirm this is all fake when more info is released.
Yeah and i was one of them if you check my post history. I just wish we could talk about games now after they backtracked on drm. I spend a lot of time in the Killer Instinct threads and its great just to see people excited and enthusiastic for a change if you know what i mean, thats what i joined this forum for.
It wasn't meant to allow two people to play at the same time and I believe they even said that it wasn't possible for online games. Two people playing at the same time would have been a direct consequence of the DRM model for offline games, where the primary console only checks DRM once every 24 hours. So it wouldn't have had real-time information on what game is being played.
10 people at the same time may not have been as many as people make it out to be. For example, it's not clear if everyone could have selected their own list of people or if everyone would have had to be in one 'family' (as the name implies). If everyone is only in one family 10 people isn't that many. First, you'd have to put people in your household in the family so that they could access the games from their own account. Also, the system wouldn't work well for disjunct circles of friends. E.g. if there are three friends and each of them have one other friend the other two don't share, then you'd already be at 6 people and so far these three other friends would be in a 'family' where they'd only know one person. If someone wants to share games with people in the same household (such as children), they'd immediately give up some spots and those people maybe would also want to add their own friends.
With limitations like that, the sharing would immediately seem a lot more restrictive and plausible.
Without having all the details it's just ridiculous to point out that the system would have been implausible bullshit... People always seem to be willing to immediately accept anything bad about the Xbox as a fact, but don't believe a word when anyone says anything possibly good about the system, such as when one of the top Xbox guys said that the sharing feature wasn't just demos and that there was no time limit.
They still might do that at some point, but they probably have enough on their hands with completely revamping the system months before the release of the console.
Besides, there's no incentive for them to bring sharing to digital games now. When it was all digital, they were basically forced to implement sharing (and used games) in some form, because they were competing with a system that allowed sharing (and used games). Now, neither the Playstation, nor Steam, nor the Xbox allow the sharing of digital games. So there is no incentive to enable it.
Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
Doesn't debunk anything.
It's PR bullshit, just like almost everything else said. Reads like PR, hits all the same highlights as MS PR, gives basically no new info that MS PR hasn't already share other than qualifiers and excuses. So official or unofficial, it's still PR from a MS mouthpiece.
That'd be a lot more credible if people didn't jump on every half-truth and hearsay that comes up on top of the real nonsense that gets pushed. Sometimes there really are good ideas that get chastised because of the box they come in... whether the Xbox One was ever in that position, I doubt it, but a clear explanation of what they actually do and don't want to do would have worked wonders either way.
- Status